Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Customer Value Over Shareholder Value


Published on

The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

Published in: Business
  • Many thanks for this thoughtful article.
    I hope this would be widely circulated – especially in the finance world – where often the excel file is considered more important than reality. This has also been written about quite well in the book “Boomerang”.

    Look forward to more insights

    Mr Ravi Kaimal
    Founding Partner
    Kaimal Chartterjee & Associates
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Customer Value Over Shareholder Value

  1. 1. This is a longish article, but well worth looking at for managers and CEO’s for it puts into perspective the realmarket versus the perception market (focusing on short term results). I hope this helps you in your business.The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder ValueThere is only one valid definition of a business purpose: to create a customer.Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management ―Imagine an NFL coach,‖ writes Roger Martin, Dean of theRotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, in his important new book, Fixing the Game,―holding a press conference on Wednesday to announce that he predicts a win by 9 points on Sunday, and thatbettors should recognize that the current spread of 6 points is too low. Or picture the team‘s quarterbackstanding up in the postgame press conference and apologizing for having only won by 3 points when the finalbetting spread was 9 points in his team‘s favor. While it‘s laughable to imagine coaches or quarterbacks doingso, CEOs are expected to do both of these things.‖Imagine also, to extrapolate Martin‘s analogy, that the coach and his top assistants were hugely compensated,not on whether they won games, but rather by whether they covered the point spread. If they beat the pointspread, they would receive massive bonuses. But if they missed covering the point spread a couple of times,the salary cap of the team could be cut and key players would have to be released, regardless of whether theteam won or lost its games. Suppose also that in order to manage the expectations implicit in the point spread,the coach had to spend most of his time talking with analysts and sports writers about the prospects of thecoming games and ―managing‖ the point spread, instead of actually coaching the team.It would hardly be a surprise that the most esteemed coach in this world would be a coach who met or beat thepoint spread in forty-six of forty-eight games—a 96 percent hit rate. Looking at these forty-eight games, onewould be tempted to conclude: ―Surely those scores are being ‗managed‘?‖Suppose moreover that the whole league was rife with scandals of coaches ―managing the score‖, for instance,by deliberately losing games (―tanking‖), players deliberately sacrificing points in order not to exceed the pointspread (―point shaving‖), ―buying‖ key players on the opposing team or gaining access to their game plan.If this were the situation in the NFL, then everyone would realize that the ―real game‖ of football had becomeutterly corrupted by the ―expectations game‖ of gambling. Everyone would be calling on the NFLCommissioner to intervene and ban the coaches and players from ever being involved directly or indirectly inany form of gambling on the outcome of games, and get back to playing the game.The Real Market Vs The Expectations MarketIn the today‘s paradoxical world of maximizing shareholder value, which Jack Welch himself has called “thedumbest idea in the world”, the situation is the reverse. CEOs and their top managers have massiveincentives to focus most of their attentions on the expectations market, rather than the real job of running thecompany producing real products and services.The ―real market,‖ Martin explains, is the world in which factories are built, products are designed andproduced, real products and services are bought and sold, revenues are earned, expenses are paid, and realdollars of profit show up on the bottom line. That is the world that executives control—at least to some extent.The expectations market is the world in which shares in companies are traded between investors—in otherwords, the stock market. In this market, investors assess the real market activities of a company today and, on
  2. 2. the basis of that assessment, form expectations as to how the company is likely to perform in the future. Theconsensus view of all investors and potential investors as to expectations of future performance shapes thestock price of the company.―What would lead [a CEO],‖ asks Martin, ―to do the hard, long-term work of substantially improving real-market performance when she can choose to work on simply raising expectations instead? Even if she has aperformance bonus tied to real-market metrics, the size of that bonus now typically pales in comparison withthe size of her stock-based incentives. Expectations are where the money is. And of course, improving real-market performance is the hardest and slowest way to increase expectations from the existing level.‖In fact, a CEO has little choice but to pay careful attention to the expectations market, because if the stockprice falls markedly, the application of accounting rules (regulation FASB 142) classify it as a ―goodwillimpairment‖. Auditors may then force the write-down of real assets based on the company‘s share price in theexpectations market. As a result, executives must concern themselves with managing expectations if they wantto avoid write-downs of their capital.In this world, the best managers are those who meet expectations. ―During the heart of the Jack Welch era,‖writes Martin, ―GE met or beat analysts‘ forecasts in forty-six of forty-eight quarters between December 31,1989, and September 30, 2001—a 96 percent hit rate. Even more impressively, in forty-one of those forty-sixquarters, GE hit the analyst forecast to the exact penny—89 percent perfection. And in the remaining sevenimperfect quarters, the tolerance was startlingly narrow: four times GE beat the projection by 2 cents, once itbeat it by 1 cent, once it missed by 1 cent, and once by 2 cents. Looking at these twelve years of unnaturalprecision, Jensen asks rhetorically: ‗What is the chance that could happen if earnings were not being―managed‘?‖‘ Martin replies: infinitesimal.In such a world, it is therefore hardly surprising, says Martin, that the corporate world is plagued by continuingscandals, such as the accounting scandals in 2001-2002 with Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International, GlobalCrossing, and Adelphia, the options backdating scandals of 2005-2006, and the subprime meltdown of 2007-2008. The recent demise of MF Global Holdings and the related ongoing criminal investigation are furtherreminders that we have not put these matters behind us.―It isn‘t just about the money for shareholders,‖ writes Martin, ―or even the dubious CEO behavior that ourtheories encourage. It‘s much bigger than that. Our theories of shareholder value maximization and stock-based compensation have the ability to destroy our economy and rot out the core of American capitalism.These theories underpin regulatory fixes instituted after each market bubble and crash. Because the fixes beginfrom the wrong premise, they will be ineffectual; until we change the theories, future crashes are inevitable.‖―A pervasive emphasis on the expectations market,‖ writes Martin, ―has reduced shareholder value, createdmisplaced and ill-advised incentives, generated inauthenticity in our executives, and introduced parasiticmarket players. The moral authority of business diminishes with each passing year, as customers, employees,and average citizens grow increasingly appalled by the behavior of business and the seeming greed of itsleaders. At the same time, the period between market meltdowns is shrinking, Capital markets—and the wholeof the American capitalist system—hang in the balance.‖How Did Capitalism Get Into This Mess?Martin says that the trouble began in 1976 when finance professor Michael Jensen and Dean William Mecklingof the Simon School of Business at the University of Rochester published a seemingly innocuous paper in theJournal of Financial Economics entitled ―Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs andOwnership Structure.‖
  3. 3. The article performed the old academic trick of creating a problem and then proposing a solution to thesupposed problem that the article itself had created. The article identified the principal-agent problem as beingthat the shareholders are the principals of the firm—i.e., they own it and benefit from its prosperity, while theexecutives are agents who are hired by the principals to work on their behalf. The principal-agent problemoccurs, the article argued, because agents have an inherent incentive to optimize activities and resources forthemselves rather than for their principals.Ignoring Peter Drucker‘s foundational insight of 1973 that the only valid purpose of a firm is to createa customer, Jensen and Meckling argued that the singular goal of a company should be to maximize the returntoshareholders. To achieve that goal, they academics argued, the company should give executives acompelling reason to place shareholder value maximization ahead of their own nest-feathering.Unfortunately, as often happens with bad ideas that make some people a lot of money, the idea caught on andhas even become the conventional wisdom. During his tenure as CEO of GE from 1981 to 2001, Jack Welchcame to be seen–rightly or wrongly–as the outstanding exemplar of the theory, as a result of his capacity togrow shareholder value at GE and magically hit his numbers exactly. When Jack Welch retired from GE, thecompany had gone from a market value of $14 billion to $484 billion at the time of his retirement, making it,according to the stock market, the most valuable and largest company in the world. In 1999 he was named―Manager of the Century‖ by Fortune magazine. Since Welch retired in 2001, however, GE‘s stock price hasnot fared so well: GE has lost around 60 percent of the market capitalization that Welch ―created‖.Before 1976, professional managers were in charge of performance in the real market and were paid forperformance in that real market. That is, they were in charge of earning real profits for their company and theywere typically paid a base salary and bonus for meeting real market performance targets.The Change Had The Opposite Effect From What Was IntendedThe proponents of shareholder value maximization and stock-based executive compensation hoped that theirtheories would focus executives on improving the real performance of their companies and thus increasingshareholder value over time.Yet, precisely the opposite occurred. In the period of shareholder capitalism since 1976, executivecompensation has exploded while corporate performance has declined. ―Maximizing shareholder value‖ turnedout to be the disease of which it purported to be the cure.Between 1960 and 1980, CEO compensation per dollar of net income earned for the 365 biggest publiclytraded American companies fell by 33 percent. CEOs earned more for their shareholders for steadily less andless relative compensation. By contrast, in the decade from 1980 to 1990 , CEO compensation per dollar of netearnings produced doubled. From 1990 to 2000 it quadrupled.Meanwhile real performance was declining. From 1933 to 1976, real compound annual return on the S&P 500was 7.5 percent. Since 1976, Martin writes, the total real return on the S&P 500 was 6.5 percent (compoundannual). The situation is even starker if we look at the rate of return on assets, or the rate of return on investedcapital, which according to a comprehensive study by Deloitte‘s CenterForThe Edge are today only one quarterof what they were in 1965.Although Jack Welch was seen during his tenure as CEO of GE as the heroic exemplar of maximizingshareholder value, he came to be one of its strongest critics. On March 12, 2009, he gave an interview withFrancesco Guerrera of the Financial Times and said, ―On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest ideain the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy… your main constituencies are your employees, yourcustomers and your products. Managers and investors should not set share price increases as their overarchinggoal. … Short-term profits should be allied with an increase in the long-term value of a company.‖
  4. 4. The Shift To Delighting The CustomerWhat to do? Given the numbers of the people and the amount of money involved, rescuing capitalism fromthese catastrophically bad habits won‘t be easy. For most organizations, it will take a phase change. It meansrethinking the very basis of a corporation and the way business is conducted, as well as the values of an entiresociety.―We must shift the focus of companies back to the customer and away from shareholder value,‖ says Martin.―The shift necessitates a fundamental change in our prevailing theory of the firm… The current theory holdsthat the singular goal of the corporation should be shareholder value maximization. Instead, companies shouldplace customers at the center of the firm and focus on delighting them, while earning an acceptable return forshareholders.‖If you take care of customers, writes Martin, shareholders will be drawn along for a very nice ride. Theopposite is simply not true: if you try to take care of shareholders, customers don‘t benefit and, ironically,shareholders don‘t get very far either.In the real market, there is opportunity to build for the long run rather than to exploit short-term opportunities,so the real market has a chance to produce sustainability. The real market produces meaning and motivation fororganizations. The organization can create bonds with customers, imagine great plans, and bring them tofruition.―The expectations market,‖ says Martin, ―generates little meaning. It is all about gaining advantage over atrading partner or putting two trading partners together, then tolling them for the service. This structure breedsa kind of amorality in which information is withheld or manipulated and trading partners are treated as vehiclesfrom which to extract money in the short run, at whatever the cost to the relationship.‖By contrast, the real market contributes to a sense of authenticity for individuals. Because individuals can findmeaning in their jobs. They are not playing a zero-sum game. They are doing something real and positive forsociety.Examples Of The ShiftMartin cites three examples of firms that are, even within the legal limits of today‘s world, focused on the realworld of customers and products more than gaming the stock market.One is Johnson & Johnson [JNJ]. In 1982, when the Tylenol poisonings occurred, ―J&J was in a terrible bind.Tylenol represented almost a fifth of the company‘s profits, and any decline in its market share would bedifficult to reclaim, especially in the face of rampant fear and rumor. Yet, rather than attempt to downplay thecrisis—it was after all, likely the work of an individual madman in one tiny part of the country—J&J did justthe opposite. Chairman James Burke immediately ordered a halt to all Tylenol production and advertising,distributed warnings to hospitals across the country, and within a week of the first death, announced anationwide recall of every single bottle of Tylenol on the market. J&J went on to develop tamper-proofpackaging for its products; an innovation that would soon become the industry standard.‖ Burke‘s actions werenot the heroic act of a single individual, says Martin. The actions flowed from the company credo which isengraved in granite at the entry to company headquarters, which makes crystal clear that customers are first,then employees, and shareholders absolutely last.Martin contrasts J&J‘s handling of the Tylenol crisis with the handling of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in2010 by BP [BP], which he sees as driven by a short-term concern for BP‘s profits.
  5. 5. A second example is Procter & Gamble [PG] which ―declares in its purpose statement: ‗We will providebranded products and services of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world‘s consumers,now and for generations to come. As a result, consumers will reward us with leadership sales, profit and valuecreation, allowing our people, our shareholders and the communities in which we live and work to prosper.‘For P&G, consumers come first and shareholder value naturally follows. Per the statement of purpose, if P&Ggets things right for consumers, shareholders will be rewarded as a result.‖A third example is Apple [AAPL]. ―Apple‘s CEO, Steve Jobs, seems to delight in signaling to shareholdersthat they don‘t matter much and that they certainly won‘t interfere with Apple‘s pursuit of its originalcustomer-focused purpose: ‗to make a contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advancehumankind.‘ Jobs‘s feisty, almost combative demeanor at shareholder meetings is legendary. At the meeting inFebruary 2010, one shareholder asked Jobs, ―What keeps you up at night?‖ Jobs quickly responded,‗Shareholder meetings.‘‖Making Needed Legal ChangesAdmonishing CEOs (and investors) to ignore the expectations market and refocus on delighting the customerisn‘t going to work, says Martin. It‘s as likely to be ―as effective as admonishing frat boys to stop chasinggirls.‖ For CEOs, there are massive incentives for staying attuned to it and severe punishments for ignoring it.Investors, analysts, and hedge funds continue to reward firms that meet expectations and punish those that donot. Missing expectations, a dropping stock-price, and real-asset write-downs can together create anunstoppable downward spiral. In the current environment, to simply ignore the expectations market is to courtdisaster.One of the great values of the Martin‘s book is that he puts his finger on the needed legal changes that can helpshift the dynamic of business away from gaming the expectations market and back to doing the real job ofdelighting customers.  One is the repeal of 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which contains what has become known as the ―safe harbor‖ provision. ―To move ahead productively,‖ he writes, ―the safe harbor provision should simply be repealed. Executives and their companies should be legally liable for any attempt to manage expectations. Without the safe harbor provisions, there would be no earnings guidance and that would be a great thing.‖ Making this change would immediately bring the practice of giving guidance to the stock market, and so gaming expectations, to a screeching halt. There is, says Martin, simply no societal value to earnings guidance. The market will know exactly what earnings are going to be at the end of the quarter, in just three or fewer months. Society is not better off to have an executive publicly guess at what that number is going to be. We need to turn executives from the useless, vapid task of managing expectations to the psychologically and economically rewarding business of creating value.  A second is the elimination of regulation FASB 142 which forces the real write-downs of real assets based on the company‘s share price in the expectations market. The current rule forces executives to concern themselves with managing expectations in order to avoid write-downs. Changing the rule would remove the major sanction that now exists for executives who ignore the expectations market.  A third is to restore the focus of executives on the real market and on an authentic life by eliminating the use of stock-based compensation as an incentive. This doesn‘t mean that executives shouldn‘t own shares. If an executive wants to buy stock as some sort of bonding with the shareholders or for whatever other reasons, that‘s just fine. However, executives should be prevented from selling any stock, for any reason, while serving in that capacity—and indeed for several years after leaving their posts. Stock based compensation is a very recent phenomenon, one associated with lower shareholder returns, bubbles and crashes, and huge corporate scandals. In 1970, stock based compensation was less than 1 percent of compensation. By 2000, it was around half of compensation. For the last 35 years,
  6. 6. stock-based compensation has been tried. It had the opposite effect of what was intended. We should learn from experience and discontinue it.Other Needed ChangesMartin also argues for associated changes:  We must restore authenticity to the lives of our executives. The expectations market generates inauthenticity in executives, filling their world with encouragements to suspend moral judgment. They receive incentive compensation to which the rational response is to game the system. And since they spend most of their time trading value around rather than building it, they lose perspective on how to contribute to society through their work. Customers become marks to be exploited, employees become disposable cogs, and relationships become only a means to the end of winning a zero-sum game.  We need to address board governance. Boards have become complicit in gaming the expectations market, and the associated inflation of executive compensation.  We need to regulate expectations market players, most notably hedge funds. Net, hedge funds create no value for society. They have huge incentives to promote volatility in the expectations market, which is dangerous for us but lucrative for them. So, we need to rein in the power of hedge funds to damage real markets.What’s Next?In a book that offers so much, one is tempted to ask for more. Perhaps in subsequent writings, Martin willexpand and carry his thinking forward.In future writings, he might document more of the economically disastrous practices that enable firms to meettheir quarterly targets, such as looting the firm‘s pension fund or cutting back on workerbenefits or outsourcing production to a foreign country in ways that further destroy the firm‘s ability toinnovate and compete.He might also spell out the specific management changes that are necessary to delight the customer. Thecommand-and-control management of hierarchical bureaucracy is inherently unable to delight anyone–it wasnever intended to. To delight customers, a radically different kind of management needs to be in place, with adifferent role for the managers, a different way of coordinating work, a different set of values and a differentway of communicating. This is not rocket science. It‘s called radical management.He might also show how the shift from maximizing shareholder value to delighting the customer involves amajor power shift within the organization. Instead of the company being dominated by salesmen who canpump up the numbers and the accountants who can come up with cuts needed to make the quarterly targets,those who add genuine value to the customer have to re-occupy their rightful place.He might also build on the theme that the shift from maximizing shareholder value to delighting the customerdoesn‘t involve sacrifices for the shareholders, the organizations or the economy. That‘s because delighting thecustomer is not just profitable: it‘s hugely profitable.Bottom-Line: Capitalism Is At RiskAmerican capitalism hangs in the balance, writes Martin. His book gives a clear explanations as to why this isso and what should be done to save it.
  7. 7. A large number of rent-collectors and financial middlemen making vast amounts of money are keeping thecurrent system in place. The fact that what they are doing is destroying the economy will not sway theirthinking. As Upton Sinclair noted, ―It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salarydepends upon his not understanding it.‖Is change possible? Martin believes so, quoting Vince Lombardi: ―We would accomplish many more things ifwe did not think of them as impossible.‖Other ―impossible‖ changes have been accomplished. ―Not long ago, it seemed fanciful that public smokingwould be restricted and tobacco companies would sponsor public service ads that discourage smoking,‖ wroteDeepak Chopra and David Simon in 2004. ―But this shift in awareness occurred when a critical mass of peopledecided they would no longer tolerate a behavior that harmed many while benefited a few.‖For instance, the Aspen Institute‘s Corporate Values Strategy Group has been working on promoting long-term orientation in business decision making and investing. In 2009, twenty-eight leaders representingbusiness, investment, government, academia, and labor (including Warrent Buffett, CEO of BerkshireHathaway [BRK.A, BRK.B], Lou Gerstner, former CEO of IBM [IBM] and Jim Wolfensohn, former presidentof the World Bank) joined with the Institute to endorse a bold call to end the focus on value-destroying short-term-ism in our financial markets and create public policies that reward long-term value creation for investorsand the public good.Ultimately, the change will happen, not just because it‘s right, but because it makes more money. Onceinvestors realize what is going on, the economics will drive the change forward.The recognition that maximizing shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world is an obvious but still aradical idea. Like all obvious, radical ideas, in the first instance it will be rejected. Then it will be ridiculed.Finally it will be self-evident and no one will be able to remember why anyone ever thought otherwise.Regards,Gautam MahajanPresident-Customer Value FoundationTel: 011-26922006/ 26831226Mobile: +91 98 100 60 368Email: mahajan.g@customervaluefoundation.comWebsite: